Five-Year Review Report
Second Five-Year Review Report
For
The Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma, Oklahoma
OKD980620967
July 2006
PREPARED BY:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Dallas, Texas
and
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Second Five-year Review Report - 1
Second Five-Year Review
For
The Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site
OKD980620967
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
This memorandum documents the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) performance, determinations, and approval of the Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard
Superfund Site (site) second five-year review under Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 United States Code
(USC) §962 l(c), as provided in the attached Second Five-Year Review Report prepared by
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the EPA.
Summary of Five-Year Review Findings
The second five-year review for this site indicates that the current site conditions are
protective of human health and the environment. This assessment has been made based on a
review of data available for the site, a site inspection, technical evaluation, and interviews.
The short-term protectiveness of the remedy is not affected. In May 2006, the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) placed a notice on the deed for the site. The deed
notice is intended as an institutional control to provide notification of the site conditions and
remedial actions and to restrict the uses of the land at the site and minimize potential exposure to
contaminants.
Actions Needed
To address the findings during the second five-year review, several recommendations and
follow-up actions have been identified for the site. Periodic site inspections should occur to
insure the deed notice is functioning as intended. It is recommended that the five (5) monitoring
wells be plugged because the 8 year monitoring program has shown that there are no PCB's in
the ground water. Operations and maintenance of the cap, namely mowing, should continue.
Determinations
I have determined that the remedy for the Tenth Street Superfund Site is protective of
human health and the environment in the short term, and will continue to be protective so long as
the action items identified in the Five-Year Review Report are addressed as described above.
Samuel J. Coleman, P.E.
Director, Superfund Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
- 2 -
CONCURRENCES
SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site
EPA ID# OKD980620967
By: •y—
Bartolome J. Canellas, Ur£. EPA
Remedial Project Manager
Date:
By:
Gloria Moran, U.S. EPA
Assistant Regional Counsel
Date:
Date:
MarkPeycke, U.S.
Chief, Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel
By:
Sing Chia, U.
Chief, Louisi
Date: 7 -
klahoma Program Management Section
By:
Wren
Chief, Louisi
.EPA
'ew Mexico/Oklahoma Branch
Date: 1 ~ ° C
By:
Pam PhWips, U.S. EPAN
Deputy Director, Superfund Division
Date: ~T x
- 3 -
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms ...............................................................................................................................6
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................7
Five-Year Review Summary Form ....................................................................................................8
I. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................10
II. Site Chronology.......................................................................................................................12
III. Background.............................................................................................................................13
Physical Characteristics .............................................................................................................13
Land and Resource Use .............................................................................................................13
History of Contamination ..........................................................................................................13
Initial Response .........................................................................................................................13
Basis for Taking Action.............................................................................................................14
IV. Remedial Actions .....................................................................................................................15
Remedy Selection ......................................................................................................................16
Remedy Implementation............................................................................................................17
System Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) ..........................................................18
V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review ............................................................................19
VI. Five-Year Review Process......................................................................................................20
Administrative Components ......................................................................................................20
Community Involvement ...........................................................................................................20
Document Review .....................................................................................................................20
Data Review..............................................................................................................................20
Site Inspection ...........................................................................................................................21
Interviews .................................................................................................................................21
VII. Technical Assessment ...........................................................................................................21
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the
decision documents?..................................................................................................................22
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data,
cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the
time of the remedy still valid? ...................................................................................................22
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could
call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? .................................................................23
Technical Assessment Summary ...............................................................................................23
VIII. Issues.....................................................................................................................................23
IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions...........................................................................23
- 4 -
X. Protectiveness Statement(s)....................................................................................................24
XI. Next Review............................................................................................................................24
Tables
Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events...........................................................................................12
Table 2 - Feasibility Study Alternatives Summary.....................................................................15
Table 3 - Initial PCB Results for Groundwater Monitoring .......................................................18
Table 3 - Annual System Operations/O&M Costs .....................................................................19
Table 4 - Issues ...........................................................................................................................23
Table 5 - Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions.................................................................24
Appendix
Appendix 1 - Site Location Maps
Appendix 2 - List of Documents Used in the Review
Appendix 3 - Photographs
Appendix 4 - Site Inspection Checklist
Appendix 5 - Interviews
Appendix 6 – Community Involvement, DEQ Press Release (5/23/2006)
- 5 -
List of Acronyms
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 also known as Superfund: Amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DEQ Oklahoma Department Of Environmental Quality
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FS Feasibility study
FR Federal Register
IAG Interagency Agreement
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
NPL National Priorities List: A list of sites identified for remediation under CERCLA.
O&M Operation and maintenance
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial design
RI/FS Remedial investigation/ feasibility study
ROD Record of Decision: Documents selection of cost-effective Superfund
financed remedy.
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. (See CERCLA.)
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineer
WasteLAN The Regional database related to CERCLIS
- 6 -
Executive Summary
Pursuant to Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation & Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”), 42 United States Code (USC)
§9621(c), the second five-year review of the remedy in place has been completed for the Tenth
Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site (“site” or “Tenth Street site”) located in Oklahoma
County, Oklahoma.. The results of the five-year review indicate that the remedy is protective of
human health and the environment in the short-term. No deficiencies were noted that currently
impact the short-term protectiveness of the remedy, although issues were identified that require
further action to ensure the continued long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
Under the statutory requirements of Section 121(c) of CERCLA, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), P. L. 99-499, and the subordinate
provisions of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 300.430(f)(4)(ii), performance of five-year reviews are
required for sites where hazardous substances remain on site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. This situation applies to the Tenth Street site. The U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality completed the first five-year review at the Tenth Street site in September 2001.
The remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, and completed in January 4, 1996 is protective of human health and the environment.
Protection of the ground water has been verified by regular ground water sampling and analysis
of the five monitoring wells. This sampling revealed that there are no detectable levels of PCBs
in the groundwater. It is recommended that the ground water detection monitoring be
discontinued and that the five monitoring wells be plugged.
The trigger for the first five-year review was the actual start of construction on August
28, 1995. This is the second five-year review.
- 7 -
Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site name (from WasteLAN): Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site
EPA ID (from WasteLAN): OKD980620967
Region: 6 State:
Oklahoma
City/County: Oklahoma City/Oklahoma County
SITE STATUS
NPL status: □ Final ■ Deleted □ Other (specify)
Remediation status (choose all that apply): □ Under Construction □ Operating ■ Complete
Multiple OUs?* □ YES ■ NO Construction completion date: 01 / 07/ 1997
Has site been put into reuse? □ YES ■ NO
REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: ■ EPA ■ State □Tribe □ Other Federal Agency ______________________
Author name: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and EPA, Region 6
Author title: Dennis L. Datin Author affiliation: Oklahoma DEQ
Review period:** April 2006 to June 2006
Date(s) of site inspection: 05 / 16 / 2006 and 05/17/2006
Type of review:
■Post-SARA □ Pre-SARA □ NPL-Removal only
□ Non-NPL Remedial Action Site □ NPL State/Tribe-lead
□ Regional Discretion
Review number: □ 1 (first) ■ 2 (second) □ 3 (third) □ Other (specify) __________
Triggering action:
□ Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU #____ □Actual RA Start at OU#____
□ Construction Completion ■Previous Five-Year Review Report
□ Other (specify)
Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): September 2001
Due date (five years after triggering action date): September 2006
- 8 -
Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont��d.
Issues: The second five-year review for this site indicates that the remedial actions set forth in the
decision documents for this site continue to be implemented as intended by the decision documents.
This assessment has been made based on a review of data available for the site, a site inspection, and
technical evaluation. The site inspection revealed some minor issues that do not alter the protectiveness
statement but that do require some action. These issues include: the 5 year ground water monitoring is
maintained though the results indicate that there are no PCBs in the groundwater; on a small portion of
the fence on the east side, a post is bent and the fence fabric is not attached; the warning sign from the
front gate is missing; and small trees are starting to grow along the fenceline.
Recommendations and Follow-up Actions: To address the issues identified during the second five-year
review, the following recommendations are made: discontinue ground water detection monitoring
and plug all monitoring wells; repair the damaged fence post and reattach the fence fabric; replace the
warning sign; and eliminate trees along the fenceline.
Protectiveness Statement(s): The remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, and completed on January 4, 1996 is protective of human health and the environment.
Protection of the ground water has been verified by ground water detection monitoring of the five
monitoring wells. This monitoring revealed that there are no detectable levels of PCBs in the
groundwater.
- 9 -
Second Five-Year Review Report
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 and the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) conducted a second five-year review of the
remedial action implemented at the Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site (“site” or
“Tenth Street site”), located in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, for the period between September
2001 (when the first five-year review was completed) and May 2006. The purpose of a five-year
review is to determine whether the remedy at a site remains protective of human health and the
environment, and to document the methods, findings, and conclusions of the five-year review in
a report. Five-Year Review Reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and make
recommendations to address the issues. This Second Five-Year Review Report documents the
results of the review for the Tenth Street Superfund site, conducted in accordance with EPA
guidance on five-year reviews.
EPA guidance on conducting five-year reviews is provided by Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five-Year Review
Guidance. EPA and ODEQ personnel followed the guidance provided in this OSWER directive
in conducting the five-year review performed for the Tenth Street site.
I. Introduction
The purpose of a five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at the Tenth Street
site is protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions
of reviews are documented in Five-Year Review reports. In addition, Five-Year Review reports
identify issues found during the review, if any, and identify recommendations to address them.
EPA must implement five-year reviews consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA § 121 (c), as amended, states:
If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall
review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation
of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are
being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon
such review it is the judgement of the President that action is appropriate at such
site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require
such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for
which such review is required, the results of all such review, and any actions
taken as a result of such reviews.
- 10 -
The NCP part 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states:
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than
every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) conducted the second five-year
review of the remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. This review was conducted by the DEQ Project Manager for the site. This report
documents the results of the review.
This is the second five-year review for the Tenth Street Superfund site. The triggering
action for this statutory review is the date of the start of the remedial action, which was August
28, 1995 and the date of the first five-year review which was September 2001. In accordance
with the EPA five-year review guidance, the five-year review for the Tenth Street site is being
conducted because the implemented remedial action resulted in hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants remaining on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. The second review for the Tenth Street Superfund Site must be completed by
September 2006.
- 11 -
II. Site Chronology
Table 1: Chronology of Site Events
EVENTS DATES
North Canadian River channelized and levees built, removing the meander
loop, which crossed through the Site. Site was operated as a municipal
landfill.
1951 – 1954
No activity noted at the Site. 1954 – 1959
Site was operated as a salvage yard. 1959 – 1985
EPA inspected the Site, finding drums, which were bulging, corroded and/or
leaking.
1983
EPA sampled soils and drums and posted warning signs at the Site. 1984 – 1985
EPA Region VI Regional Administrator approved a removal action to fence and
cap the Site.
Aug 16, 1985
Phase I removal action conducted by Region VI Emergency Response Clean
Up Service contractor to decontaminate and relocate automobiles, spare parts,
the office building and tire repair machine shop.
Sep 12-27, 1985
Phase II removal action conducted to level, temporary cap placed, and seeded
Site; installed fencing; and disposed of 20 drums.
Dec 9, 1985 - Apr 10, 1987
Site proposed for the National Priorities List (52 FR 2492). January, 1987
Site added to the National Priorities List (52 FR 27620). July, 1987
Field investigation conducted for Remedial Investigation Report. April, 1989
Feasibility Study Report published. July, 1990
Record of Decision (ROD) issued requiring chemical treatment of the PCB-contaminated
soil.
Sep 27, 1990
Feasibility Study Report Addendum published. April 1993
Public Notice announced Amended Proposed Plan. July 13, 1993
Amended ROD (including responses to comments from public) issued
requiring capping of contaminated soil meeting technical requirements for caps
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 40 CFR 761.75 (b) (1) and
(2).
Sep 30, 1993
EPA issued Interagency Agreement No. DW96950179-01-0 to the USCOE to
perform remedial design.
May 11, 1994
EPA issued Interagency Agreement No. DW96950200-01-0 to the USCOE to
perform remedial action.
Sep 28, 1994
Final Remedial Design completed. January, 1995
O & M Plan May 1995
Awarded Contract DACW56-95-C-0027 for construction of the remedial action
to Abatement Systems, Inc.
Apr 26, 1995
Notice To Proceed issued. May 31, 1995
Remediation activities at the Site began. Aug 28, 1995
Pre-final inspection conducted with determination that remedial action
construction activities were substantially complete, except turfing.
Jan 4, 1996
4-Month Warranty Inspection Apr 30, 1996
EPA Issued Preliminary Close-Out Report Jun 11, 1996
8-month Warranty Inspection Sep 18, 1996
Final Inspection January, 1997
Operational and Functional Determination January, 1997
The site was deleted from the NPL November 21, 2000
First five-year review completed August 2001
- 12 -
III. Background
Physical Characteristics
The Site is located in an industrial and residential area in northeast Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma (Section 31, Township 12 North, Range 2 West). The Site is located on the south side
of Tenth Street between Bryant Avenue and the North Canadian River and covers approximately
3.5 acres (Figure 1). One residence is located adjacent to the west side of the Site. Residential
subdivisions are located approximately one block to the north and approximately one block to
the west of the Site.
Aerial photos show that in 1951 a meander loop of the North Canadian River cut almost
directly through the Site, making the Site subject to a 100-year flood. Between 1951 and 1954,
the river was channelized and levees were constructed on both sides of the river.
Land and Resource Use
The site is in an area of mixed residential and industrial land use, and is surrounded on
three sides by active automobile salvage yards. In the September 27, 1990 Record of Decision,
EPA indicates an industrial land use to this site. The site is currently not being used. The site is
owned by a private land owner.
Although insufficient information exists to classify the alluvial aquifer at the site, EPA
believes the appropriate classification is Class II, a potential drinking water supply. The aquifer
is not contaminated with PCBs, meets primary drinking water standards, does not exceed 10,000
ppm total dissolved solids, and probably yields more than 150 gallons per day. No users of the
alluvial aquifer have been identified; all known water supply wells in the immediate area are
probably completed in the Garber-Wellington.
History of Contamination
The Site, including the cutoff meander loop, was operated as a municipal landfill between
1951 and 1954. No activity at the Site was noted between 1954 and 1959. Beginning in 1959,
Mr. Raymond Cobb leased the Site from Mr. Sullivan Scott and used the Site as a salvage yard,
accepting materials such as tires, solvents, and transformers. The dielectric fluids from the
transformers contained Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). The fluids were drained from the
transformers, then transferred to barrels and sold. During the recovery process, substantial
quantities of oil were spilled onto the ground. Mr. Cobb continued this operation until his death
in 1979, when Mr. Rolling Fulbright began operating the Site as Deadeye's Salvage Yard, an
automobile salvage yard.
Sampling by the EPA in 1984 and 1985 identified PCB concentrations up to 39,000 parts
per million (ppm) in the soil.
Initial Response Actions
After reviewing the data, EPA determined that the contaminants posed a potential health
threat. The Regional Administrator authorized a removal action in an Action Memorandum
dated August 23, 1985. EPA began the removal action for the Site in September 1985 to address
direct human contact threats and the potential for offsite migration of contaminants.
- 13 -
The removal action was successfully completed in April 1987. The removal action
consisted of:
• Removing and disposing of the electrical equipment and drums containing hazardous
substances;
• Decontaminating and relocating of automobiles and other salvage material;
• Consolidation of contaminated soils to the center of the Site;
• Grading of the Site for effective drainage,
• Installation of a temporary synthetic liner and clay cap; and
• Erection of a security fence around the Site.
The Site was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in January 1987 (52 FR
2492) and placed on the NPL in July 1987 (52 FR 27620).
Basis for Taking Action
The purpose of the response actions conducted at the Tenth Street site was to protect
public health and welfare and the environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from the site.
The EPA initiated a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) in 1989. The RI
determined the types and amounts of contaminants present at the Site and discovered the extent
of contamination. The RI indicated that PCBs were the contaminants of concern at the Site, and
were limited to surface and subsurface soils at the Site. The predominant PCB species present
was Aroclor 1260.
The groundwater table at the site ranged from about 1151.7 Mean Sea Level (MSL) to
about 1150.0 MSL. Contaminated soil at its deepest point onsite was approximately 3 feet above
the water table. No PCBs or other compounds were detected in groundwater samples taken
during the RI. In addition, surface water samples were collected during the RI and no
contaminates attributable to the Site were detected.
Human Health and Environmental Impacts
The human health risk assessment conducted during the Remedial Investigation (RI )
indicated that carcinogenic risks posed by the site were attributed to PCB contamination in the
soil. The average lifetime carcinogenic risk from direct contact with soil, based on the average
concentration of PCBs in soil was estimated to be 3.8 x 10 –5 excess cancer incident.
The environmental risks associated with contaminants at the site were reported during the
RI to be non-measurable or minimal. Surface waste samples collected showed no organic
chemicals related to the site. In addition biota samples collected indicated that the North
Canadian River, downstream from the site, contained more individual and species than upstream.
During 1987, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior
conducted a Preliminary Natural Resource Survey and granted a release from natural resource
damages.
- 14 -
Feasibility Study
The Feasibility Study (FS) developed and evaluated a range of alternatives to remediate
the soil contamination. A total of 5 alternatives were considered after a screening process.
Table 1 below lists the alternatives considered.
Table 2. Feasibility Study Alternatives Summary, Tenth Street Superfund Site, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma
Alt.
Number
Alternative
Description
Capital Cost Annual
O & M cost
Present
Worth Cost
Implementation
Time
1 No Action $ 2,500 $ 11,800 $ 184,200 30 years for
O& M
3 Excavation and
Off-site Disposal
$ 4,037,000 $ 0 $ 4,037,000 3 months
4 Excavation,
Onsite-Chemical
Treatment and
Disposal Onsite
$ 4,044,000 $ 0 $ 4,044,000 6-9 months
5 Excavation,
Onsite Thermal
Treatment, and
Disposal Onsite
$ 4,406,000 $ 0 $ 4,406,000 6-9 months
6 Excavation and
Offsite Thermal
Treatment
$17,829,000 $ 0 $ 17,829,000 3 months
Note: Alternative 2 was screened out prior to the detailed evaluation of alternatives because the site was in a flood
plain and because the alternative would not satisfy the preference for treatment expressed in SARA, (ROD,
September 27, 1990).
IV. Remedial Actions
Remedial Action Objectives
Based upon the concentration and risk of PCBs, the Site was determined to pose a
principal threat because of the potential for direct contact with the contaminated soil and the
soil’s potential impact on groundwater. The scope of the response action was to address the
principal threat at the Site by preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil
through treatment and/or containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of
contaminants from the soil to groundwater.
Remedy Selection
A proposed plan for the Site was issued in August 1990, presenting the preferred
alternative of chemical dechlorination of the contaminated soil. The EPA Regional Administrator
for Region 6 signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on September 27, 1990. In the ROD, EPA
selected Alternative 4 - Excavation, Onsite Chemical Treatment and Disposal Onsite, as the
- 15 -
remedy for the Tenth Street Superfund Site. As noted in the ROD in the "Statement of Basis and
Purpose", the State of Oklahoma (State) did not support the original remedy selected in the ROD.
The major components of the Selected Remedy included:
• Removal of the existing red clay cover and the visqueen plastic liner placed during the
removal action;
• Excavation of an estimated 7,500 cubic yards of PCB contaminated soil with
concentrations of 25 ppm and higher;
• Chemical treatment of the excavated contaminated oil by a chemical dechlorination
process meeting the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PCB alternative treatment
requirements;
• Backfill the treated soil in the excavated area; and
• Grade the site for effective drainage and establish vegetative cover.
During the Remedial Design (RD) phase of the onsite chemical treatment remedy, the
EPA became aware of problems with the implementation of this process at other Superfund sites.
Problems that were experienced included: low production rates; severe odor problems during the
treatment process in the soil after treatment; "soupy" (wet) physical condition of the treated soil
and the ensuing need for stabilization before placement back on the ground as backfill; soil
volume increases of 100% during treatment, causing space problems for backfilling on the site;
and leaching of residual reagent from the soil following treatment.
In addition to the technical problems related to chemical dechlorination experienced at
other Superfund sites, onsite treatment of the contaminated soil was further complicated as the
result of construction debris and other types of solid waste that had been dumped at the Tenth
Street Site previous to the PCB spills. The contaminated soil from PCBs became mixed with the
solid waste. The materials handling problems from such a mixture greatly complicated the
treatment remedy. Projected construction costs were also greatly increasing. As a result, EPA re-evaluated
the remedial alternatives at the Site.
ROD Amendment
On September 30, 1993, the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 6 signed an Amended
ROD, with State concurrence. The amended remedy addressed approximately 9,800 cubic yards
of soil contaminated with PCBs at or above 25 ppm. The objective of the amended remedy was
the same as the original ROD, which was to protect human health and the environment by
preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil through treatment and/or
containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of contaminants from the soil to
groundwater. The major components of the selected remedy as reflected in the Amended ROD
included:
• Excavation and placement of contaminated soil from the roadway right-of-way on the
south side of N.E. Tenth Street onto the existing cap;
• Allowing the Oklahoma Department of Transportation’s widening of Tenth Street to
cover contaminated soil in the roadway right-of-way on the North side of N.E. Tenth
Street;
- 16 -
• Construction of a new cap meeting the technical requirements for caps under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), 40 CFR Section 761.75 (b)(1) and (2); and
• Maintenance of the cap and ground water monitoring.
The revised remedy of capping the waste does not satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element of the remedy. But the EPA, with concurrence from the State of
Oklahoma, determined that this alternative was protective of human health and the environment,
complied with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate,
was cost effective compared to equally protective alternatives that utilized permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Remedy Implementation
The EPA entered into an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers (USACE) (Tulsa District) to perform the remedial design and the remedial action.
The USACE initiated the remedial action contract on May 31, 1995, and the actual
remedial action construction activities at the Site began on August 28, 1995. The major
components of the remedial action included:
* Drum sampling and disposal.
* Overdrilling and grouting of existing monitoring wells.
* Excavation and relocation of PCB-contaminated soil from the perimeter of the Site.
* Soil sampling of the walls and bottom of the excavated area for PCBs.
* Placement, grading and compaction of random fill to grade Site at the required
foundation elevation.
* Installation and development of three down-gradient ground water monitoring wells.
* Placement of 3-foot thick clay barrier layer.
* Placement of geomembrane, drainage net, and geotextile.
* Installation of perimeter drain system.
* Placement of cover soil and topsoil layers.
* Monitoring well sampling.
* Installation of new fence around the Site.
* Establishment of turf on the cap.
During the remedial action activities, 2 feet of additional excavation was needed in an
area which was determined to exceed the PCB cleanup standard after the initial excavation
sampling. This additional 275 cubic yards of excavation and the additional testing required
added an additional $17,825 to the original estimated costs.
At the conclusion of the remedial action, approximately 4,655 cubic yards (cy3) of soil
with the concentrations of PCBs greater than 25 ppm had been excavated from the north and
west perimeter and the south corner of the perimeter of the Site. These soils were then spread in
the area where the existing cap, along with the remainder of the waste (from the Removal Action
in 1987), was located. This area was then capped, sprigged and fertilized. A new fence was also
installed around the Site.
- 17 -
The remedial action contractor obtained samples from the 5 monitoring wells (3 new
downgradient wells which are MW3A, MW 4A, and MW 5A and 2 existing upgradient wells
which are M-1 and M-2) and analyzed them for PCBs. All analyses showed non-detectable
levels of PCBs, indicating that no PCBs are leaching into the groundwater and migrating offsite.
The results of the analyses are shown in Table 2 below.
TABLE 3. INITIAL PCB RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING
1996 SAMPLING
(μg/l)
Analyte
M-1
M-2
MW 3A
MW 4A
MW 5A
Arochlor 1016
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Arochlor 1221
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Arochlor 1232
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Arochlor 1242
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Arochlor 1248
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Arochlor 1254
< 20.0
< 20.0
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Arochlor 1260
< 20.0
< 20.0
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
NOTE: The MCL for PCBs is 0.5 μg/l.
The remedial action was completed on January 4, 1996.
Operation and Maintenance
The initial Operations and Maintenance plan had the cap inspected once a month or
immediately following a heavy rainfall event for the first six months and then every six months
thereafter. Groundwater monitoring occurred once every year. An annual report was to be
developed following receipt of laboratory data from the monitoring well sampling. From the
results of the sampling over several years (see Table 4), it has been determined that there is no
need to continue sampling of the wells. Therefore, it is recommended that the five monitoring
wells be plugged this year.
In January 1997, the State of Oklahoma began inspection, maintenance, and monitoring
activities in accordance with the approved O&M Plan issued May 1995. The ground water
monitoring wells at the Site were sampled annually at the beginning of O&M. Monitoring
consists of sampling 5 monitoring wells, 2 up gradient and 3 down gradient, to verify that PCBs
from this Site are not contaminating the ground water. Additionally, the grass on the cap was
mowed three times the first year and twice the second year and third years and then will be
mowed only once a year for several years. The mowing of the grass cover was changed in 2004
to once again mowing three times per year. More frequent mowing is easier than mowing once
- 18 -
per year. The cap is inspected for damage on regular basis. Repairs from erosion or other
damage will be made as necessary by the State. To date, no repairs of the cap have been needed.
Table 3: Annual System Operations/O&M Costs
Dates Total Cost rounded to nearest $1000
From To
July 1, 1997 June 30, 1998 1800
July 1, 1998 June 30, 1999 1800
July 1, 1999 June 30, 2000 1600
July 1, 2000 June 30, 2001 1650
July 1, 2001 June 30, 2002 600
July 1, 2002 June 30, 2003 1500
July 1, 2003 June 30, 2004 600
July 1, 2004 June 30, 2005 1950
July 1, 2005 June 30, 2006 900
V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review
Since the first five-year review was conducted in August, 2001, the mowing of the grass
cover was changed to mowing three times per year from once per year, locks were placed on the
monitoring wells, a deed notice was prepared and filed in the land records, and ground water
detection monitoring was changed from once per year to every two years.
- 19 -
VI. Five-Year Review Process
Administrative Components
The five-year review team consisted of Dennis L. Datin of the DEQ. The review was
conducted from April 2006 to July 2006. The tasks for the five-year review included:
1. Review of existing sampling data up to September 2005,
2. Inspection of the site on May 16, 2006,
3. A press release stating that a five-year review was underway, and
4. Preparation of the five-year review report.
Community Involvement
The community was notified on May 23, 2006 that a five-year review was being
conducted. A copy of the Press Release issued by the ODEQ is provided as an attachment to this
report.
Upon signature, the Second Five-Year Review Report will be placed in the information
repositories for the site, both local to the site and at the EPA Region 6 office in Dallas, Texas. A
notice will then be published in the local newspaper to summarize the findings of the review and
announce the availability of the report at the information repositories.
Documents Review
The following documents were reviewed to complete this five-year review. These
documents included:
��� The first five-year review, September 2001 and
• Groundwater Assessment reports, 1996-2005.
Data Review
Prior to the completion of the remedial action, ground water sampling was conducted as
part of the confirmation sampling (See Table 2 in Remedy Implementation Section). The O& M
plan also required ground water sampling once a year. Table 4 below summarizes the results of
the annual ground water sampling. No PCBs were detected in the groundwater between 1996
and September 2004. In the first Five-year Review, it was decided that the monitoring could be
modified to once every two years instead of once every year because the PCBs being below the
MCLs.
- 20 -
TABLE 4. ANNUAL PCB RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING, 1997-2004
(μg/l)
ANALYTE
M1S
M2S
MW3AS
MW4AS
MW5AS
Total PCBs in Water
September 1997
< 0.300
< 0.300
< 0.300
< 0.300
< 0.300
Total PCBs in Water
September 1998
< 0.220
< 0.300
< 0.300
< 0.300
< 0.300
Total PCBs in Water
September 1999
N
N
N
N
N
Total PCBs in Water
September 2000
N N N N N
Total PCBs in Water
September 2002
< 0.019 < 0.019 < 0.019 < 0.019 < 0.019
Total PCBs in Water
September 2004
<0.190 <0.190 <0.190 <0.190 <0.190
NOTE 1: N = No PCBs detected and confirmed.
NOTE 2: The sampling method used is EPA Method 608.
Site Inspection
Dennis L. Datin and Kelly Dixon of the ODEQ conducted a site inspection on May 16,
2006. The visual inspection revealed that the site cap cover is sound and that the vegetative
cover is adequate. The fence was in good shape except for one post on the east side that was
bent at an approximate 45 degree angle toward the west. The groundwater monitoring wells are
located outside of the fenced area. Some of the protective bollards at some of the wells are gone.
The wells themselves were in good condition.
Interviews
On May 18, 2006 Gayla Scott, whose father lives next to the site, was interviewed. She
had no problems with the remedy but had concerns about the stigma of owning part of a
superfund site and wondered how that would affect the selling of the property. She would like
for the address of her father’s house to be taken out of the documentation concerning the location
of the site. The deed notice was revised to use the metes and bounds description of the property
for the site and does not use the house address of this adjacent landowner.
On May 18, 2006 Robbie Kienzie of the Oklahoma City Planning Department was
interviewed. She had no problems with the site.
VII. Technical Assessment
An overall assessment of the remedy implemented at the Site was conducted to confirm
that the selected remedy is operating according to the ROD expectations and is still protective of
human health and the environment. The assessment was used to primarily answer the following
questions:
• Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
- 21 -
• Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
• Has any other information come into light that could call into question the protectiveness
of the remedy?
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
The decision document for the Tenth Street site is the September 30, 1993 amended
ROD. All activities at the Site were consistent with the ROD, as amended, and with the RD and
RA statements of work issued to the USCOE for design and construction of the remedy.
All contaminated soil with more than 25 ppm PCBs was placed under a clay barrier layer
with a geo-membrane liner. Infiltration of precipitation is retarded because of this liner, thereby
reducing the possibility of leaching of the contaminants into the ground water. The inspection
and maintenance of the cap according to the O & M plan insures that cap’s integrity remains in
place.
Sampling of the ground water has revealed that no PCBs are present, which supports the
protectiveness of the remedy.
The health and safety plan for the site is adequate. Access control to the site is adequate
with the chain link fence in good condition and locks are on the gates. The performance of the
remedial action continues as originally planned.
The operation and maintenance of the site is easily accomplished with mowing to control
the grass taking place usually in September of each year. The groundwater sampling usually
occurs in September of each year. The cost of mowing the site is about $1050 per year. Since
the ground water has shown the PCBs to be below the MCLs, the plugging of the wells is
recommended.
Since the site has been closed, there have been no changes in the effectiveness of the
remedy and the remedy is functioning adequately. There have been no changes in land use of the
surrounding areas since the remedy began.
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial
action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
The baseline risk assessment conducted during the 1990 RI/FS and a second risk
assessment conducted in March 1993 for the amended ROD was based on an exposure scenario
for an industrial worker.
Current and future land uses are expected to remain industrial onsite and residential
offsite. Although no formal land use plan was obtained from the City of Oklahoma, land use
patterns in the immediate vicinity of the site are consistent with these designations, and
consequently are consistent with the assumptions in the ROD.
- 22 -
The MCL for PCBs in the groundwater is 0.5 μg/l. The remedial action complies with all
applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). These include the EPA and
DEQ rules and regulations.
Because the cap is functional and no PCBs were found in the groundwater, no risk
recalculation/assessment was necessary for this site.
Question C: Has any other information come into light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
The type of other information that might call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy include potential future land use changes in the vicinity of the site or other expected
changes in site conditions or exposure pathways. A request was made by a landowner whether
the site could be used to store junk vehicles at this location. The deed notice requires DEQ
approval before any use can occur on the cap. Any use like this would require additional
protective cover material. No other information has come to light as part of this second five-year
review for the site that would call into question the protectiveness of the site remedy. Although
the site is in the 100-year flood plain, the USACE has confirmed that current controls, such as
levees, are still protective. This demonstrates that the cap will not be impacted from a 100-year
flood.
Technical Assessment Summary
The technical assessment, based on the data review, site inspection, and technical
evaluation indicates that the remedial actions selected for the site continue to be implemented as
intended by the decision document.
VIII. Issues
Table 7: Issues
Issues
Affects
Current
Protectiveness
(Y/N)
Affects Future
Protectiveness
(Y/N)
Fence on the east side of the site had one post that was bent N N
Protective bollards at some of the monitor wells are gone N N
Sign was not on the site fence N N
Small trees along the fence line N N
- 23 -
IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Table 8: Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Issue Affects
Protectiveness (Y/N)
Recommen-dations
and
Follow-up
Actions
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Agency
Milestone
Date
Current Future
Bent Post Straighten post DEQ EPA September
2006
N N
Monitor
Wells
Plug wells DEQ EPA September
2006
N N
Protective
Bollards
Plug wells DEQ EPA September
2006
N N
Sign Replace Sign DEQ EPA September
2006
N N
X. Protectiveness Statement
The remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, is protective of human health and the environment. Protection of the ground water
has been verified by the regularly ground water sampling of the five monitoring wells, in which
this sampling has revealed that there are no detectable levels of PCBs in the groundwater.
XI. Next Review
The next five-year review, the third for the site, will be due on September 2011, which is
5 years from the date of this report.
- 24 -
List of Documents Reviewed
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report,
EPA Region 6, July 1990.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report
Addendum, EPA Region 6, April 1993.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Dump, Record of Decision, EPA Region 6,
September 1990.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Site, Amended Record of Decision, EPA
Region 6, September 1993.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Final Design Analysis,
June 1995.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Construction
Specifications and Plans, January 1995.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, Tenth Street Superfund Site Preliminary Close
Out Report -Draft, February 1996.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, (OSWER
No. 9355.7-03B-P or EPA 540-R-01-007), June 2001.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality, First Five-Year Review Report for Tenth Street Superfund Site, September 2001.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Ground water data, 1997 – 2004.
- 25 -
APPENDIX 1
Site Location Maps
- 26 -
- 27 -
- 28 -
APPENDIX 2
List of Documents Used in the Review
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report,
EPA Region 6, July 1990.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report
Addendum, EPA Region 6, April 1993.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Dump, Record of Decision, EPA Region 6,
September 1990.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Site, Amended Record of Decision, EPA
Region 6, September 1993.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Final Design Analysis,
June 1995.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Construction
Specifications and Plans, January 1995.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, Tenth Street Superfund Site Preliminary Close
Out Report -Draft, February 1996.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, (OSWER
No. 9355.7-03B-P or EPA 540-R-01-007), June 2001.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality, First Five-Year Review Report for Tenth Street Superfund Site, September 2001.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Ground water data, 1997 – 2004.
- 29 -
APPENDIX 3
Site Photographs
- 30 -
Photo 1. Tenth Street Superfund site vegetative cover.
- 31 -
Photo 2. Monitoring well for the Tenth Street Superfund site.
- 32 -
Photo 3. Bent post in the fence on the East side of the Tenth Street Superfund site.
- 33 -
APENDIX 4
Site Inspection Checklist
- 34 -
Site Inspection Checklist
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: Tenth Street Superfund Site Date of inspection: May 16, 2006
Location and Region: Oklahoma City, OK Region 6 EPA ID: OKD980620967
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
review: Oklahoma DEQ
Weather/temperature: Clear/68 F
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
■ Landfill cover/containment □ Monitored natural attenuation
■ Access controls □ Groundwater containment
■ Institutional controls □ Vertical barrier walls
□ Groundwater pump and treatment
□ Surface water collection and treatment
■ Other Ground water Sampling
Attachments: ■ Inspection team roster attached □ Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
1. O&M site manager ____________________________ ______________________ ____________
Name Title Date
Interviewed □ at site □ at office □ by phone Phone no. ______________
Problems, suggestions; □ Report attached ________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
2. O&M staff ____________________________ ______________________ ____________
Name Title Date
Interviewed □ at site □ at office □ by phone Phone no. ______________
Problems, suggestions; □Report attached _______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
- 35 -
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.
Agency ____________________________
Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; □ Report attached _______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Agency ____________________________
Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; □ Report attached _______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Agency ____________________________
Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; □ Report attached _______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Agency ____________________________
Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; □ Report attached _______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
4. Other interviews (optional) □ Report attached.
- 36 -
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
1. O&M Documents
■ O&M manual ■ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
□ As-built drawings □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
□ Maintenance logs □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan □ Readily available □Up to date □ N/A
□ Contingency plan/emergency response plan □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. O&M and OSHA Training Records □ Readily available □Up to date ■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. Permits and Service Agreements
□ Air discharge permit □Readily available □ Up to date ■ N/A
□ Effluent discharge □ Readily available □ Up to date ■ N/A
□Waste disposal, POTW □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
□ Other permits_____________________ □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5. Gas Generation Records □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
6. Settlement Monument Records ��� Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
7. Groundwater Monitoring Records ■ Readily available ■ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
8. Leachate Extraction Records □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
9. Discharge Compliance Records
□ Air □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
□ Water (effluent) □ Readily available □ Up to date □N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
10. Daily Access/Security Logs □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
IV. O&M COSTS
- 37 -
1. O&M Organization
■ State in-house □ Contractor for State
□ PRP in-house □ Contractor for PRP
□ Federal Facility in-house □ Contractor for Federal Facility
□ Other__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. O&M Cost Records
■ Readily available □ Up to date
□ Funding mechanism/agreement in place
Original O&M cost estimate____________________ □ Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period
Describe costs and reasons: __________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ■ Applicable □ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing damaged □ Location shown on site map ■ Gates secured □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and other security measures □ Location shown on site map □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
- 38 -
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
1. Implementation and enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented □ Yes □ No ■ N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced □ Yes □ No ■ N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) _________________________________________
Frequency ________________________________________________________________________
Responsible party/agency ____________________________________________________________
Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________
Name Title Date Phone no.
Reporting is up-to-date □ Yes G No G N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency □ Yes G No G N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met □ Yes □ No ■N/A
Violations have been reported □Yes □No ■ N/A
Other problems or suggestions: □Report attached
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Adequacy ■ICs are adequate □ ICs are inadequate □N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
D. General
1. Vandalism/trespassing □ Location shown on site map ■No vandalism evident
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Land use changes on site G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Land use changes off site G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads □ Applicable ■N/A
1. Roads damaged □ Location shown on site map ■Roads adequate □N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
- 39 -
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks ______________________________________________________________
_ _________________________________________________________________ _ _
_________ ___________________________________________________________
__ __________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
VII. LANDFILL COVERS ■Applicable □ N/A
A. Landfill Surface
1. Settlement (Low spots) □Location shown on site map □Settlement not evident
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
2. Cracks □ Location shown on site map ■Cracking not evident
Lengths____________ Widths___________ Depths__________
Remarks____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
3. Erosion □ Location shown on site map ■Erosion not evident
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. Holes □Location shown on site map ■ Holes not evident
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5. Vegetative Cover ■ Grass ■ Cover properly established ■No signs of stress
□ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) ■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
7. Bulges □ Location shown on site map ■ Bulges not evident
Areal extent______________ Height____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
8. Wet Areas/Water Damage ■ Wet areas/water damage not evident
□Wet areas □ Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
□ Ponding □Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
□Seeps □Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
□ Soft subgrade □Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
- 40 -
9. Slope Instability □Slides □ Location shown on site map ■ No evidence of slope instability
Areal extent______________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
B. Benches □ Applicable ■N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
channel.)
1. Flows Bypass Bench G Location shown on site map ■ N/A or okay
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Bench Breached G Location shown on site map ■N/A or okay
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Bench Overtopped G Location shown on site map ■ N/A or okay
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
C. Letdown Channels G Applicable ■N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1. Settlement G Location shown on site map ■ No evidence of settlement
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Material Degradation G Location shown on site map ■No evidence of degradation
Material type_______________ Areal extent_____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Erosion G Location shown on site map ■ No evidence of erosion
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. Undercutting G Location shown on site map ■No evidence of undercutting
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5. Obstructions Type_____________________ ■ No obstructions
G Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
Size____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type____________________
■ No evidence of excessive growth
G Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
G Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
- 41 -
D. Cover Penetrations G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Gas Vents G Active G Passive
G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition
G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance
■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Gas Monitoring Probes
G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition
G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance ■N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
■ Properly secured/locked G Functioning ■ Routinely sampled ■ Good condition
G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance G N/A
Remarks___________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
4. Leachate Extraction Wells
G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition
G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance ■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5. Settlement Monuments G Located G Routinely surveyed ■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
E. Gas Collection and Treatment G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Gas Treatment Facilities
G Flaring G Thermal destruction G Collection for reuse
G Good condition G Needs Maintenance
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
G Good condition G Needs Maintenance
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
G Good condition G Needs Maintenance G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
F. Cover Drainage Layer ■ Applicable G N/A
1. Outlet Pipes Inspected ■ Functioning G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Outlet Rock Inspected ■ Functioning G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds G Applicable ■ N/A
- 42 -
1. Siltation Areal extent______________ Depth____________ ■N/A
G Siltation not evident
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Erosion Areal extent______________ Depth____________
G Erosion not evident
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Outlet Works G Functioning ■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. Dam G Functioning ■N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
H. Retaining Walls G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Deformations G Location shown on site map G Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement____________ Vertical displacement_______________
Rotational displacement____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Degradation G Location shown on site map G Degradation not evident
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Siltation G Location shown on site map G Siltation not evident
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Vegetative Growth G Location shown on site map ■ N/A
G Vegetation does not impede flow
Areal extent______________ Type____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Erosion G Location shown on site map ■ Erosion not evident
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. Discharge Structure G Functioning ■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Settlement G Location shown on site map G Settlement not evident
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
- 43 -
2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring__________________________
G Performance not monitored
Frequency_______________________________ G Evidence of breaching
Head differential__________________________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
C. Treatment System G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
G Metals removal G Oil/water separation G Bioremediation
G Air stripping G Carbon adsorbers
G Filters_________________________________________________________________________
G Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)_____________________________________________
G Others_________________________________________________________________________
G Good condition G Needs Maintenance
G Sampling ports properly marked and functional
G Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
G Equipment properly identified
G Quantity of groundwater treated annually________________________
G Quantity of surface water treated annually________________________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
G N/A G Good condition G Needs Maintenance
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
G N/A G Good condition G Proper secondary containment G Needs Maintenance
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
G N/A G Good condition G Needs Maintenance
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5. Treatment Building(s)
G N/A G Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) G Needs repair
G Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition
G All required wells located G Needs Maintenance G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
D. Monitoring Data
1. Monitoring Data
■ Is routinely submitted on time ■ Is of acceptable quality
2. Monitoring data suggests:
G Groundwater plume is effectively contained G Contaminant concentrations are declining
D. Monitored Natural Attenuation
- 44 -
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition
G All required wells located G Needs Maintenance ■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
X. OTHER REMEDIES
Not Applicable
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy
The remedy is operating as planned. No significant issues noted during the site inspection.
B. Adequacy of O&M
O&M procedures are being implemented in accordance with the plan, and appear to be adequate.
C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
No significant issues noted during the site inspection.
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Because the ground water data shows non detects for the PCBs, plugging of the ground water wells
will be done.
- 45 -
APPENDIX 5
Site Interviews
- 46 -
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Tenth Street Superfund Site EPA ID No.: OKD980620967
Subject: Five-Year Review Time: Date:
Contact Made By:
Name: Dennis L. Datin Title: Engineer Organization: DEQ
Individual Contacted:
Name: Robbie Kienzle
Title: Urban Redevelopment
Specialist
Organization: Office of Economic
Development
OKC Planning Department
Telephone No: (405) 297-1740
Fax No: (405) 297-1631
E-Mail Address: robbie.kienzle@okc.gov
Street Address: 420 W. Main, 9th Floor
City, State, Zip: Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Summary Of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment) Okay
2. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting
activities, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please give purpose and
results. Yes, such as possible reuse of the site.
3. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a
response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and results of the responses. No
4. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress? Yes
5. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s
management or operation?
She says it would have been better to have removed the waste from the site and will glad for the deed notice to be
placed on the site.
- 47 -
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Tenth Street Superfund Site EPA ID No.: OKD980620967
Subject: Five-Year Review Time: Date:
Type: ■ Telephone □ Visit □ Other
Location of Visit:
□ Incoming □ Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name: Dennis L. Datin Title: Engineer Organization: DEQ
Individual Contacted:
Name: Gayla Scott
Title: Neighbor Organization:
Telephone No: 405-843-1565 x4
Fax No:
E-Mail Address:
Street Address: 5613 NW 103rd Place
City, State, Zip: Oklahoma City, OK 73162
Summary Of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment) Okay
2. What effects have site operations had on the surrounding community? The stigma of the site being a superfund
site and how that effects the selling of the site.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details. No
4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing,
or emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details.
Some cars in the area have been stolen.
5. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress? Yes
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s management
or operation? She would like for the address of the site not be same as her fathers house which is right next to the
site.
- 48 -
APPENDIX 6
Community Involvement
DEQ Press Release (5/23/2006)
- 49 -
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:26 AM
To: Black Chronicle (E-mail); Capitol Hill Beacon (E-mail); Edmond Sun (E-mail); KFOR TV (E-mail); KKNG/
KTLR/ KTUZ Radio (E-mail); KOCO TV (E-mail); KOKH TV (E-mail); KOMA/KRXO Radio (E-mail); KTOK
AM Radio (E-mail); KWTV TV (E-mail); Norman Transcript (E-mail); OETA TV (E-mail); Oklahoma County
Newspapers (E-mail); Oklahoma Gazette (E-mail); The Journal Record (E-mail)
Subject: DEQ Press Release: 5 year Review for 10th Street Superfund Site
News Release
Picture (Metafile)
707 North Robinson, P.O. Box 1677, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101-1677
For Immediate Release: May 23, 2006
Contact: Monty Elder, (405)702-1017
Five-Year Review for the Tenth Street Superfund Site
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) began conducting a five-year review of the Tenth Street Superfund
Site earlier this month. The purpose of this review is to determine whether the site remedy
remains protective of human health and the environment as well as to document the methods,
findings, and conclusions of the five-year review in a report. The report will be available to the
public in September. This will be the second Five-Year Review for the site. Five Year Reviews
of remedies at Superfund sites are required when waste is left in place; in this case, waste was
consolidated and capped onsite.
The Tenth Street Superfund Site is located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Site was used as a
municipal landfill from 1951 to 1954. The Site was then used as a salvage yard from 1959 to
1979, accepting materials such as tires, solvents, and transformers. Sampling by the EPA in 1984
and 1985 identified elevated polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentrations in the soil. After
reviewing the data, EPA determined that the contaminants posed a potential health threat. In
1985 EPA placed a temporary cover on the contaminated soil to address direct human contact
threats and the potential for offsite migration of contaminants. The Site was proposed for the
National Priorities List (NPL) in January 1987 (52 FR 2492) and placed on the NPL in July 1987
(52 FR 27620).
- 50 -
Following a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD)
on September 27, 1990. The ROD is a legally binding decision document that directs the remedy
for the site. The ROD was amended in 1993 to change the remedy from soil washing to capping.
The objective of the amended remedy was the same as the original ROD, to protect human health
and the environment by preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil through
treatment and/or containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of
contaminants from the soil to groundwater. The selected remedy was to place the contaminated
soil under a new cap and to monitor the ground water for PCBs.
The remedial action was completed on January 4, 1996. Since that time the State of Oklahoma
has been performing operations and maintenance at the site, which included mowing and
sampling of the ground water.
- 51 -

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Five-Year Review Report
Second Five-Year Review Report
For
The Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma, Oklahoma
OKD980620967
July 2006
PREPARED BY:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Dallas, Texas
and
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Second Five-year Review Report - 1
Second Five-Year Review
For
The Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site
OKD980620967
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
This memorandum documents the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) performance, determinations, and approval of the Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard
Superfund Site (site) second five-year review under Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 United States Code
(USC) §962 l(c), as provided in the attached Second Five-Year Review Report prepared by
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the EPA.
Summary of Five-Year Review Findings
The second five-year review for this site indicates that the current site conditions are
protective of human health and the environment. This assessment has been made based on a
review of data available for the site, a site inspection, technical evaluation, and interviews.
The short-term protectiveness of the remedy is not affected. In May 2006, the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) placed a notice on the deed for the site. The deed
notice is intended as an institutional control to provide notification of the site conditions and
remedial actions and to restrict the uses of the land at the site and minimize potential exposure to
contaminants.
Actions Needed
To address the findings during the second five-year review, several recommendations and
follow-up actions have been identified for the site. Periodic site inspections should occur to
insure the deed notice is functioning as intended. It is recommended that the five (5) monitoring
wells be plugged because the 8 year monitoring program has shown that there are no PCB's in
the ground water. Operations and maintenance of the cap, namely mowing, should continue.
Determinations
I have determined that the remedy for the Tenth Street Superfund Site is protective of
human health and the environment in the short term, and will continue to be protective so long as
the action items identified in the Five-Year Review Report are addressed as described above.
Samuel J. Coleman, P.E.
Director, Superfund Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
- 2 -
CONCURRENCES
SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site
EPA ID# OKD980620967
By: •y—
Bartolome J. Canellas, Ur£. EPA
Remedial Project Manager
Date:
By:
Gloria Moran, U.S. EPA
Assistant Regional Counsel
Date:
Date:
MarkPeycke, U.S.
Chief, Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel
By:
Sing Chia, U.
Chief, Louisi
Date: 7 -
klahoma Program Management Section
By:
Wren
Chief, Louisi
.EPA
'ew Mexico/Oklahoma Branch
Date: 1 ~ ° C
By:
Pam PhWips, U.S. EPAN
Deputy Director, Superfund Division
Date: ~T x
- 3 -
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms ...............................................................................................................................6
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................7
Five-Year Review Summary Form ....................................................................................................8
I. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................10
II. Site Chronology.......................................................................................................................12
III. Background.............................................................................................................................13
Physical Characteristics .............................................................................................................13
Land and Resource Use .............................................................................................................13
History of Contamination ..........................................................................................................13
Initial Response .........................................................................................................................13
Basis for Taking Action.............................................................................................................14
IV. Remedial Actions .....................................................................................................................15
Remedy Selection ......................................................................................................................16
Remedy Implementation............................................................................................................17
System Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) ..........................................................18
V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review ............................................................................19
VI. Five-Year Review Process......................................................................................................20
Administrative Components ......................................................................................................20
Community Involvement ...........................................................................................................20
Document Review .....................................................................................................................20
Data Review..............................................................................................................................20
Site Inspection ...........................................................................................................................21
Interviews .................................................................................................................................21
VII. Technical Assessment ...........................................................................................................21
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the
decision documents?..................................................................................................................22
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data,
cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the
time of the remedy still valid? ...................................................................................................22
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could
call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? .................................................................23
Technical Assessment Summary ...............................................................................................23
VIII. Issues.....................................................................................................................................23
IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions...........................................................................23
- 4 -
X. Protectiveness Statement(s)....................................................................................................24
XI. Next Review............................................................................................................................24
Tables
Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events...........................................................................................12
Table 2 - Feasibility Study Alternatives Summary.....................................................................15
Table 3 - Initial PCB Results for Groundwater Monitoring .......................................................18
Table 3 - Annual System Operations/O&M Costs .....................................................................19
Table 4 - Issues ...........................................................................................................................23
Table 5 - Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions.................................................................24
Appendix
Appendix 1 - Site Location Maps
Appendix 2 - List of Documents Used in the Review
Appendix 3 - Photographs
Appendix 4 - Site Inspection Checklist
Appendix 5 - Interviews
Appendix 6 – Community Involvement, DEQ Press Release (5/23/2006)
- 5 -
List of Acronyms
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 also known as Superfund: Amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DEQ Oklahoma Department Of Environmental Quality
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FS Feasibility study
FR Federal Register
IAG Interagency Agreement
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
NPL National Priorities List: A list of sites identified for remediation under CERCLA.
O&M Operation and maintenance
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial design
RI/FS Remedial investigation/ feasibility study
ROD Record of Decision: Documents selection of cost-effective Superfund
financed remedy.
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. (See CERCLA.)
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineer
WasteLAN The Regional database related to CERCLIS
- 6 -
Executive Summary
Pursuant to Section 121(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation & Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”), 42 United States Code (USC)
§9621(c), the second five-year review of the remedy in place has been completed for the Tenth
Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site (“site” or “Tenth Street site”) located in Oklahoma
County, Oklahoma.. The results of the five-year review indicate that the remedy is protective of
human health and the environment in the short-term. No deficiencies were noted that currently
impact the short-term protectiveness of the remedy, although issues were identified that require
further action to ensure the continued long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
Under the statutory requirements of Section 121(c) of CERCLA, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), P. L. 99-499, and the subordinate
provisions of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 300.430(f)(4)(ii), performance of five-year reviews are
required for sites where hazardous substances remain on site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. This situation applies to the Tenth Street site. The U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality completed the first five-year review at the Tenth Street site in September 2001.
The remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, and completed in January 4, 1996 is protective of human health and the environment.
Protection of the ground water has been verified by regular ground water sampling and analysis
of the five monitoring wells. This sampling revealed that there are no detectable levels of PCBs
in the groundwater. It is recommended that the ground water detection monitoring be
discontinued and that the five monitoring wells be plugged.
The trigger for the first five-year review was the actual start of construction on August
28, 1995. This is the second five-year review.
- 7 -
Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site name (from WasteLAN): Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site
EPA ID (from WasteLAN): OKD980620967
Region: 6 State:
Oklahoma
City/County: Oklahoma City/Oklahoma County
SITE STATUS
NPL status: □ Final ■ Deleted □ Other (specify)
Remediation status (choose all that apply): □ Under Construction □ Operating ■ Complete
Multiple OUs?* □ YES ■ NO Construction completion date: 01 / 07/ 1997
Has site been put into reuse? □ YES ■ NO
REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: ■ EPA ■ State □Tribe □ Other Federal Agency ______________________
Author name: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and EPA, Region 6
Author title: Dennis L. Datin Author affiliation: Oklahoma DEQ
Review period:** April 2006 to June 2006
Date(s) of site inspection: 05 / 16 / 2006 and 05/17/2006
Type of review:
■Post-SARA □ Pre-SARA □ NPL-Removal only
□ Non-NPL Remedial Action Site □ NPL State/Tribe-lead
□ Regional Discretion
Review number: □ 1 (first) ■ 2 (second) □ 3 (third) □ Other (specify) __________
Triggering action:
□ Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU #____ □Actual RA Start at OU#____
□ Construction Completion ■Previous Five-Year Review Report
□ Other (specify)
Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): September 2001
Due date (five years after triggering action date): September 2006
- 8 -
Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont��d.
Issues: The second five-year review for this site indicates that the remedial actions set forth in the
decision documents for this site continue to be implemented as intended by the decision documents.
This assessment has been made based on a review of data available for the site, a site inspection, and
technical evaluation. The site inspection revealed some minor issues that do not alter the protectiveness
statement but that do require some action. These issues include: the 5 year ground water monitoring is
maintained though the results indicate that there are no PCBs in the groundwater; on a small portion of
the fence on the east side, a post is bent and the fence fabric is not attached; the warning sign from the
front gate is missing; and small trees are starting to grow along the fenceline.
Recommendations and Follow-up Actions: To address the issues identified during the second five-year
review, the following recommendations are made: discontinue ground water detection monitoring
and plug all monitoring wells; repair the damaged fence post and reattach the fence fabric; replace the
warning sign; and eliminate trees along the fenceline.
Protectiveness Statement(s): The remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, and completed on January 4, 1996 is protective of human health and the environment.
Protection of the ground water has been verified by ground water detection monitoring of the five
monitoring wells. This monitoring revealed that there are no detectable levels of PCBs in the
groundwater.
- 9 -
Second Five-Year Review Report
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 and the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) conducted a second five-year review of the
remedial action implemented at the Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard Superfund Site (“site” or
“Tenth Street site”), located in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, for the period between September
2001 (when the first five-year review was completed) and May 2006. The purpose of a five-year
review is to determine whether the remedy at a site remains protective of human health and the
environment, and to document the methods, findings, and conclusions of the five-year review in
a report. Five-Year Review Reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and make
recommendations to address the issues. This Second Five-Year Review Report documents the
results of the review for the Tenth Street Superfund site, conducted in accordance with EPA
guidance on five-year reviews.
EPA guidance on conducting five-year reviews is provided by Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five-Year Review
Guidance. EPA and ODEQ personnel followed the guidance provided in this OSWER directive
in conducting the five-year review performed for the Tenth Street site.
I. Introduction
The purpose of a five-year review is to determine whether the remedy at the Tenth Street
site is protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions
of reviews are documented in Five-Year Review reports. In addition, Five-Year Review reports
identify issues found during the review, if any, and identify recommendations to address them.
EPA must implement five-year reviews consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA § 121 (c), as amended, states:
If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall
review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation
of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are
being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon
such review it is the judgement of the President that action is appropriate at such
site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require
such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for
which such review is required, the results of all such review, and any actions
taken as a result of such reviews.
- 10 -
The NCP part 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states:
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than
every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) conducted the second five-year
review of the remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. This review was conducted by the DEQ Project Manager for the site. This report
documents the results of the review.
This is the second five-year review for the Tenth Street Superfund site. The triggering
action for this statutory review is the date of the start of the remedial action, which was August
28, 1995 and the date of the first five-year review which was September 2001. In accordance
with the EPA five-year review guidance, the five-year review for the Tenth Street site is being
conducted because the implemented remedial action resulted in hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants remaining on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. The second review for the Tenth Street Superfund Site must be completed by
September 2006.
- 11 -
II. Site Chronology
Table 1: Chronology of Site Events
EVENTS DATES
North Canadian River channelized and levees built, removing the meander
loop, which crossed through the Site. Site was operated as a municipal
landfill.
1951 – 1954
No activity noted at the Site. 1954 – 1959
Site was operated as a salvage yard. 1959 – 1985
EPA inspected the Site, finding drums, which were bulging, corroded and/or
leaking.
1983
EPA sampled soils and drums and posted warning signs at the Site. 1984 – 1985
EPA Region VI Regional Administrator approved a removal action to fence and
cap the Site.
Aug 16, 1985
Phase I removal action conducted by Region VI Emergency Response Clean
Up Service contractor to decontaminate and relocate automobiles, spare parts,
the office building and tire repair machine shop.
Sep 12-27, 1985
Phase II removal action conducted to level, temporary cap placed, and seeded
Site; installed fencing; and disposed of 20 drums.
Dec 9, 1985 - Apr 10, 1987
Site proposed for the National Priorities List (52 FR 2492). January, 1987
Site added to the National Priorities List (52 FR 27620). July, 1987
Field investigation conducted for Remedial Investigation Report. April, 1989
Feasibility Study Report published. July, 1990
Record of Decision (ROD) issued requiring chemical treatment of the PCB-contaminated
soil.
Sep 27, 1990
Feasibility Study Report Addendum published. April 1993
Public Notice announced Amended Proposed Plan. July 13, 1993
Amended ROD (including responses to comments from public) issued
requiring capping of contaminated soil meeting technical requirements for caps
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 40 CFR 761.75 (b) (1) and
(2).
Sep 30, 1993
EPA issued Interagency Agreement No. DW96950179-01-0 to the USCOE to
perform remedial design.
May 11, 1994
EPA issued Interagency Agreement No. DW96950200-01-0 to the USCOE to
perform remedial action.
Sep 28, 1994
Final Remedial Design completed. January, 1995
O & M Plan May 1995
Awarded Contract DACW56-95-C-0027 for construction of the remedial action
to Abatement Systems, Inc.
Apr 26, 1995
Notice To Proceed issued. May 31, 1995
Remediation activities at the Site began. Aug 28, 1995
Pre-final inspection conducted with determination that remedial action
construction activities were substantially complete, except turfing.
Jan 4, 1996
4-Month Warranty Inspection Apr 30, 1996
EPA Issued Preliminary Close-Out Report Jun 11, 1996
8-month Warranty Inspection Sep 18, 1996
Final Inspection January, 1997
Operational and Functional Determination January, 1997
The site was deleted from the NPL November 21, 2000
First five-year review completed August 2001
- 12 -
III. Background
Physical Characteristics
The Site is located in an industrial and residential area in northeast Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma (Section 31, Township 12 North, Range 2 West). The Site is located on the south side
of Tenth Street between Bryant Avenue and the North Canadian River and covers approximately
3.5 acres (Figure 1). One residence is located adjacent to the west side of the Site. Residential
subdivisions are located approximately one block to the north and approximately one block to
the west of the Site.
Aerial photos show that in 1951 a meander loop of the North Canadian River cut almost
directly through the Site, making the Site subject to a 100-year flood. Between 1951 and 1954,
the river was channelized and levees were constructed on both sides of the river.
Land and Resource Use
The site is in an area of mixed residential and industrial land use, and is surrounded on
three sides by active automobile salvage yards. In the September 27, 1990 Record of Decision,
EPA indicates an industrial land use to this site. The site is currently not being used. The site is
owned by a private land owner.
Although insufficient information exists to classify the alluvial aquifer at the site, EPA
believes the appropriate classification is Class II, a potential drinking water supply. The aquifer
is not contaminated with PCBs, meets primary drinking water standards, does not exceed 10,000
ppm total dissolved solids, and probably yields more than 150 gallons per day. No users of the
alluvial aquifer have been identified; all known water supply wells in the immediate area are
probably completed in the Garber-Wellington.
History of Contamination
The Site, including the cutoff meander loop, was operated as a municipal landfill between
1951 and 1954. No activity at the Site was noted between 1954 and 1959. Beginning in 1959,
Mr. Raymond Cobb leased the Site from Mr. Sullivan Scott and used the Site as a salvage yard,
accepting materials such as tires, solvents, and transformers. The dielectric fluids from the
transformers contained Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). The fluids were drained from the
transformers, then transferred to barrels and sold. During the recovery process, substantial
quantities of oil were spilled onto the ground. Mr. Cobb continued this operation until his death
in 1979, when Mr. Rolling Fulbright began operating the Site as Deadeye's Salvage Yard, an
automobile salvage yard.
Sampling by the EPA in 1984 and 1985 identified PCB concentrations up to 39,000 parts
per million (ppm) in the soil.
Initial Response Actions
After reviewing the data, EPA determined that the contaminants posed a potential health
threat. The Regional Administrator authorized a removal action in an Action Memorandum
dated August 23, 1985. EPA began the removal action for the Site in September 1985 to address
direct human contact threats and the potential for offsite migration of contaminants.
- 13 -
The removal action was successfully completed in April 1987. The removal action
consisted of:
• Removing and disposing of the electrical equipment and drums containing hazardous
substances;
• Decontaminating and relocating of automobiles and other salvage material;
• Consolidation of contaminated soils to the center of the Site;
• Grading of the Site for effective drainage,
• Installation of a temporary synthetic liner and clay cap; and
• Erection of a security fence around the Site.
The Site was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in January 1987 (52 FR
2492) and placed on the NPL in July 1987 (52 FR 27620).
Basis for Taking Action
The purpose of the response actions conducted at the Tenth Street site was to protect
public health and welfare and the environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from the site.
The EPA initiated a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) in 1989. The RI
determined the types and amounts of contaminants present at the Site and discovered the extent
of contamination. The RI indicated that PCBs were the contaminants of concern at the Site, and
were limited to surface and subsurface soils at the Site. The predominant PCB species present
was Aroclor 1260.
The groundwater table at the site ranged from about 1151.7 Mean Sea Level (MSL) to
about 1150.0 MSL. Contaminated soil at its deepest point onsite was approximately 3 feet above
the water table. No PCBs or other compounds were detected in groundwater samples taken
during the RI. In addition, surface water samples were collected during the RI and no
contaminates attributable to the Site were detected.
Human Health and Environmental Impacts
The human health risk assessment conducted during the Remedial Investigation (RI )
indicated that carcinogenic risks posed by the site were attributed to PCB contamination in the
soil. The average lifetime carcinogenic risk from direct contact with soil, based on the average
concentration of PCBs in soil was estimated to be 3.8 x 10 –5 excess cancer incident.
The environmental risks associated with contaminants at the site were reported during the
RI to be non-measurable or minimal. Surface waste samples collected showed no organic
chemicals related to the site. In addition biota samples collected indicated that the North
Canadian River, downstream from the site, contained more individual and species than upstream.
During 1987, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior
conducted a Preliminary Natural Resource Survey and granted a release from natural resource
damages.
- 14 -
Feasibility Study
The Feasibility Study (FS) developed and evaluated a range of alternatives to remediate
the soil contamination. A total of 5 alternatives were considered after a screening process.
Table 1 below lists the alternatives considered.
Table 2. Feasibility Study Alternatives Summary, Tenth Street Superfund Site, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma
Alt.
Number
Alternative
Description
Capital Cost Annual
O & M cost
Present
Worth Cost
Implementation
Time
1 No Action $ 2,500 $ 11,800 $ 184,200 30 years for
O& M
3 Excavation and
Off-site Disposal
$ 4,037,000 $ 0 $ 4,037,000 3 months
4 Excavation,
Onsite-Chemical
Treatment and
Disposal Onsite
$ 4,044,000 $ 0 $ 4,044,000 6-9 months
5 Excavation,
Onsite Thermal
Treatment, and
Disposal Onsite
$ 4,406,000 $ 0 $ 4,406,000 6-9 months
6 Excavation and
Offsite Thermal
Treatment
$17,829,000 $ 0 $ 17,829,000 3 months
Note: Alternative 2 was screened out prior to the detailed evaluation of alternatives because the site was in a flood
plain and because the alternative would not satisfy the preference for treatment expressed in SARA, (ROD,
September 27, 1990).
IV. Remedial Actions
Remedial Action Objectives
Based upon the concentration and risk of PCBs, the Site was determined to pose a
principal threat because of the potential for direct contact with the contaminated soil and the
soil’s potential impact on groundwater. The scope of the response action was to address the
principal threat at the Site by preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil
through treatment and/or containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of
contaminants from the soil to groundwater.
Remedy Selection
A proposed plan for the Site was issued in August 1990, presenting the preferred
alternative of chemical dechlorination of the contaminated soil. The EPA Regional Administrator
for Region 6 signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on September 27, 1990. In the ROD, EPA
selected Alternative 4 - Excavation, Onsite Chemical Treatment and Disposal Onsite, as the
- 15 -
remedy for the Tenth Street Superfund Site. As noted in the ROD in the "Statement of Basis and
Purpose", the State of Oklahoma (State) did not support the original remedy selected in the ROD.
The major components of the Selected Remedy included:
• Removal of the existing red clay cover and the visqueen plastic liner placed during the
removal action;
• Excavation of an estimated 7,500 cubic yards of PCB contaminated soil with
concentrations of 25 ppm and higher;
• Chemical treatment of the excavated contaminated oil by a chemical dechlorination
process meeting the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PCB alternative treatment
requirements;
• Backfill the treated soil in the excavated area; and
• Grade the site for effective drainage and establish vegetative cover.
During the Remedial Design (RD) phase of the onsite chemical treatment remedy, the
EPA became aware of problems with the implementation of this process at other Superfund sites.
Problems that were experienced included: low production rates; severe odor problems during the
treatment process in the soil after treatment; "soupy" (wet) physical condition of the treated soil
and the ensuing need for stabilization before placement back on the ground as backfill; soil
volume increases of 100% during treatment, causing space problems for backfilling on the site;
and leaching of residual reagent from the soil following treatment.
In addition to the technical problems related to chemical dechlorination experienced at
other Superfund sites, onsite treatment of the contaminated soil was further complicated as the
result of construction debris and other types of solid waste that had been dumped at the Tenth
Street Site previous to the PCB spills. The contaminated soil from PCBs became mixed with the
solid waste. The materials handling problems from such a mixture greatly complicated the
treatment remedy. Projected construction costs were also greatly increasing. As a result, EPA re-evaluated
the remedial alternatives at the Site.
ROD Amendment
On September 30, 1993, the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 6 signed an Amended
ROD, with State concurrence. The amended remedy addressed approximately 9,800 cubic yards
of soil contaminated with PCBs at or above 25 ppm. The objective of the amended remedy was
the same as the original ROD, which was to protect human health and the environment by
preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil through treatment and/or
containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of contaminants from the soil to
groundwater. The major components of the selected remedy as reflected in the Amended ROD
included:
• Excavation and placement of contaminated soil from the roadway right-of-way on the
south side of N.E. Tenth Street onto the existing cap;
• Allowing the Oklahoma Department of Transportation’s widening of Tenth Street to
cover contaminated soil in the roadway right-of-way on the North side of N.E. Tenth
Street;
- 16 -
• Construction of a new cap meeting the technical requirements for caps under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), 40 CFR Section 761.75 (b)(1) and (2); and
• Maintenance of the cap and ground water monitoring.
The revised remedy of capping the waste does not satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element of the remedy. But the EPA, with concurrence from the State of
Oklahoma, determined that this alternative was protective of human health and the environment,
complied with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate,
was cost effective compared to equally protective alternatives that utilized permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Remedy Implementation
The EPA entered into an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with the U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers (USACE) (Tulsa District) to perform the remedial design and the remedial action.
The USACE initiated the remedial action contract on May 31, 1995, and the actual
remedial action construction activities at the Site began on August 28, 1995. The major
components of the remedial action included:
* Drum sampling and disposal.
* Overdrilling and grouting of existing monitoring wells.
* Excavation and relocation of PCB-contaminated soil from the perimeter of the Site.
* Soil sampling of the walls and bottom of the excavated area for PCBs.
* Placement, grading and compaction of random fill to grade Site at the required
foundation elevation.
* Installation and development of three down-gradient ground water monitoring wells.
* Placement of 3-foot thick clay barrier layer.
* Placement of geomembrane, drainage net, and geotextile.
* Installation of perimeter drain system.
* Placement of cover soil and topsoil layers.
* Monitoring well sampling.
* Installation of new fence around the Site.
* Establishment of turf on the cap.
During the remedial action activities, 2 feet of additional excavation was needed in an
area which was determined to exceed the PCB cleanup standard after the initial excavation
sampling. This additional 275 cubic yards of excavation and the additional testing required
added an additional $17,825 to the original estimated costs.
At the conclusion of the remedial action, approximately 4,655 cubic yards (cy3) of soil
with the concentrations of PCBs greater than 25 ppm had been excavated from the north and
west perimeter and the south corner of the perimeter of the Site. These soils were then spread in
the area where the existing cap, along with the remainder of the waste (from the Removal Action
in 1987), was located. This area was then capped, sprigged and fertilized. A new fence was also
installed around the Site.
- 17 -
The remedial action contractor obtained samples from the 5 monitoring wells (3 new
downgradient wells which are MW3A, MW 4A, and MW 5A and 2 existing upgradient wells
which are M-1 and M-2) and analyzed them for PCBs. All analyses showed non-detectable
levels of PCBs, indicating that no PCBs are leaching into the groundwater and migrating offsite.
The results of the analyses are shown in Table 2 below.
TABLE 3. INITIAL PCB RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING
1996 SAMPLING
(μg/l)
Analyte
M-1
M-2
MW 3A
MW 4A
MW 5A
Arochlor 1016
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Arochlor 1221
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Arochlor 1232
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Arochlor 1242
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Arochlor 1248
< 10.0
< 10.0
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Arochlor 1254
< 20.0
< 20.0
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Arochlor 1260
< 20.0
< 20.0
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
NOTE: The MCL for PCBs is 0.5 μg/l.
The remedial action was completed on January 4, 1996.
Operation and Maintenance
The initial Operations and Maintenance plan had the cap inspected once a month or
immediately following a heavy rainfall event for the first six months and then every six months
thereafter. Groundwater monitoring occurred once every year. An annual report was to be
developed following receipt of laboratory data from the monitoring well sampling. From the
results of the sampling over several years (see Table 4), it has been determined that there is no
need to continue sampling of the wells. Therefore, it is recommended that the five monitoring
wells be plugged this year.
In January 1997, the State of Oklahoma began inspection, maintenance, and monitoring
activities in accordance with the approved O&M Plan issued May 1995. The ground water
monitoring wells at the Site were sampled annually at the beginning of O&M. Monitoring
consists of sampling 5 monitoring wells, 2 up gradient and 3 down gradient, to verify that PCBs
from this Site are not contaminating the ground water. Additionally, the grass on the cap was
mowed three times the first year and twice the second year and third years and then will be
mowed only once a year for several years. The mowing of the grass cover was changed in 2004
to once again mowing three times per year. More frequent mowing is easier than mowing once
- 18 -
per year. The cap is inspected for damage on regular basis. Repairs from erosion or other
damage will be made as necessary by the State. To date, no repairs of the cap have been needed.
Table 3: Annual System Operations/O&M Costs
Dates Total Cost rounded to nearest $1000
From To
July 1, 1997 June 30, 1998 1800
July 1, 1998 June 30, 1999 1800
July 1, 1999 June 30, 2000 1600
July 1, 2000 June 30, 2001 1650
July 1, 2001 June 30, 2002 600
July 1, 2002 June 30, 2003 1500
July 1, 2003 June 30, 2004 600
July 1, 2004 June 30, 2005 1950
July 1, 2005 June 30, 2006 900
V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review
Since the first five-year review was conducted in August, 2001, the mowing of the grass
cover was changed to mowing three times per year from once per year, locks were placed on the
monitoring wells, a deed notice was prepared and filed in the land records, and ground water
detection monitoring was changed from once per year to every two years.
- 19 -
VI. Five-Year Review Process
Administrative Components
The five-year review team consisted of Dennis L. Datin of the DEQ. The review was
conducted from April 2006 to July 2006. The tasks for the five-year review included:
1. Review of existing sampling data up to September 2005,
2. Inspection of the site on May 16, 2006,
3. A press release stating that a five-year review was underway, and
4. Preparation of the five-year review report.
Community Involvement
The community was notified on May 23, 2006 that a five-year review was being
conducted. A copy of the Press Release issued by the ODEQ is provided as an attachment to this
report.
Upon signature, the Second Five-Year Review Report will be placed in the information
repositories for the site, both local to the site and at the EPA Region 6 office in Dallas, Texas. A
notice will then be published in the local newspaper to summarize the findings of the review and
announce the availability of the report at the information repositories.
Documents Review
The following documents were reviewed to complete this five-year review. These
documents included:
��� The first five-year review, September 2001 and
• Groundwater Assessment reports, 1996-2005.
Data Review
Prior to the completion of the remedial action, ground water sampling was conducted as
part of the confirmation sampling (See Table 2 in Remedy Implementation Section). The O& M
plan also required ground water sampling once a year. Table 4 below summarizes the results of
the annual ground water sampling. No PCBs were detected in the groundwater between 1996
and September 2004. In the first Five-year Review, it was decided that the monitoring could be
modified to once every two years instead of once every year because the PCBs being below the
MCLs.
- 20 -
TABLE 4. ANNUAL PCB RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER MONITORING, 1997-2004
(μg/l)
ANALYTE
M1S
M2S
MW3AS
MW4AS
MW5AS
Total PCBs in Water
September 1997
< 0.300
< 0.300
< 0.300
< 0.300
< 0.300
Total PCBs in Water
September 1998
< 0.220
< 0.300
< 0.300
< 0.300
< 0.300
Total PCBs in Water
September 1999
N
N
N
N
N
Total PCBs in Water
September 2000
N N N N N
Total PCBs in Water
September 2002
< 0.019 < 0.019 < 0.019 < 0.019 < 0.019
Total PCBs in Water
September 2004
<0.190 <0.190 <0.190 <0.190 <0.190
NOTE 1: N = No PCBs detected and confirmed.
NOTE 2: The sampling method used is EPA Method 608.
Site Inspection
Dennis L. Datin and Kelly Dixon of the ODEQ conducted a site inspection on May 16,
2006. The visual inspection revealed that the site cap cover is sound and that the vegetative
cover is adequate. The fence was in good shape except for one post on the east side that was
bent at an approximate 45 degree angle toward the west. The groundwater monitoring wells are
located outside of the fenced area. Some of the protective bollards at some of the wells are gone.
The wells themselves were in good condition.
Interviews
On May 18, 2006 Gayla Scott, whose father lives next to the site, was interviewed. She
had no problems with the remedy but had concerns about the stigma of owning part of a
superfund site and wondered how that would affect the selling of the property. She would like
for the address of her father’s house to be taken out of the documentation concerning the location
of the site. The deed notice was revised to use the metes and bounds description of the property
for the site and does not use the house address of this adjacent landowner.
On May 18, 2006 Robbie Kienzie of the Oklahoma City Planning Department was
interviewed. She had no problems with the site.
VII. Technical Assessment
An overall assessment of the remedy implemented at the Site was conducted to confirm
that the selected remedy is operating according to the ROD expectations and is still protective of
human health and the environment. The assessment was used to primarily answer the following
questions:
• Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
- 21 -
• Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
• Has any other information come into light that could call into question the protectiveness
of the remedy?
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
The decision document for the Tenth Street site is the September 30, 1993 amended
ROD. All activities at the Site were consistent with the ROD, as amended, and with the RD and
RA statements of work issued to the USCOE for design and construction of the remedy.
All contaminated soil with more than 25 ppm PCBs was placed under a clay barrier layer
with a geo-membrane liner. Infiltration of precipitation is retarded because of this liner, thereby
reducing the possibility of leaching of the contaminants into the ground water. The inspection
and maintenance of the cap according to the O & M plan insures that cap’s integrity remains in
place.
Sampling of the ground water has revealed that no PCBs are present, which supports the
protectiveness of the remedy.
The health and safety plan for the site is adequate. Access control to the site is adequate
with the chain link fence in good condition and locks are on the gates. The performance of the
remedial action continues as originally planned.
The operation and maintenance of the site is easily accomplished with mowing to control
the grass taking place usually in September of each year. The groundwater sampling usually
occurs in September of each year. The cost of mowing the site is about $1050 per year. Since
the ground water has shown the PCBs to be below the MCLs, the plugging of the wells is
recommended.
Since the site has been closed, there have been no changes in the effectiveness of the
remedy and the remedy is functioning adequately. There have been no changes in land use of the
surrounding areas since the remedy began.
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial
action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
The baseline risk assessment conducted during the 1990 RI/FS and a second risk
assessment conducted in March 1993 for the amended ROD was based on an exposure scenario
for an industrial worker.
Current and future land uses are expected to remain industrial onsite and residential
offsite. Although no formal land use plan was obtained from the City of Oklahoma, land use
patterns in the immediate vicinity of the site are consistent with these designations, and
consequently are consistent with the assumptions in the ROD.
- 22 -
The MCL for PCBs in the groundwater is 0.5 μg/l. The remedial action complies with all
applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). These include the EPA and
DEQ rules and regulations.
Because the cap is functional and no PCBs were found in the groundwater, no risk
recalculation/assessment was necessary for this site.
Question C: Has any other information come into light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
The type of other information that might call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy include potential future land use changes in the vicinity of the site or other expected
changes in site conditions or exposure pathways. A request was made by a landowner whether
the site could be used to store junk vehicles at this location. The deed notice requires DEQ
approval before any use can occur on the cap. Any use like this would require additional
protective cover material. No other information has come to light as part of this second five-year
review for the site that would call into question the protectiveness of the site remedy. Although
the site is in the 100-year flood plain, the USACE has confirmed that current controls, such as
levees, are still protective. This demonstrates that the cap will not be impacted from a 100-year
flood.
Technical Assessment Summary
The technical assessment, based on the data review, site inspection, and technical
evaluation indicates that the remedial actions selected for the site continue to be implemented as
intended by the decision document.
VIII. Issues
Table 7: Issues
Issues
Affects
Current
Protectiveness
(Y/N)
Affects Future
Protectiveness
(Y/N)
Fence on the east side of the site had one post that was bent N N
Protective bollards at some of the monitor wells are gone N N
Sign was not on the site fence N N
Small trees along the fence line N N
- 23 -
IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Table 8: Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Issue Affects
Protectiveness (Y/N)
Recommen-dations
and
Follow-up
Actions
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Agency
Milestone
Date
Current Future
Bent Post Straighten post DEQ EPA September
2006
N N
Monitor
Wells
Plug wells DEQ EPA September
2006
N N
Protective
Bollards
Plug wells DEQ EPA September
2006
N N
Sign Replace Sign DEQ EPA September
2006
N N
X. Protectiveness Statement
The remedy implemented at the Tenth Street Superfund Site in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, is protective of human health and the environment. Protection of the ground water
has been verified by the regularly ground water sampling of the five monitoring wells, in which
this sampling has revealed that there are no detectable levels of PCBs in the groundwater.
XI. Next Review
The next five-year review, the third for the site, will be due on September 2011, which is
5 years from the date of this report.
- 24 -
List of Documents Reviewed
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report,
EPA Region 6, July 1990.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report
Addendum, EPA Region 6, April 1993.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Dump, Record of Decision, EPA Region 6,
September 1990.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Site, Amended Record of Decision, EPA
Region 6, September 1993.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Final Design Analysis,
June 1995.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Construction
Specifications and Plans, January 1995.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, Tenth Street Superfund Site Preliminary Close
Out Report -Draft, February 1996.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, (OSWER
No. 9355.7-03B-P or EPA 540-R-01-007), June 2001.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality, First Five-Year Review Report for Tenth Street Superfund Site, September 2001.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Ground water data, 1997 – 2004.
- 25 -
APPENDIX 1
Site Location Maps
- 26 -
- 27 -
- 28 -
APPENDIX 2
List of Documents Used in the Review
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report,
EPA Region 6, July 1990.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Superfund Site Feasibility Study Report
Addendum, EPA Region 6, April 1993.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Dump, Record of Decision, EPA Region 6,
September 1990.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tenth Street Site, Amended Record of Decision, EPA
Region 6, September 1993.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Final Design Analysis,
June 1995.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 10th Street Superfund Site Construction
Specifications and Plans, January 1995.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, Tenth Street Superfund Site Preliminary Close
Out Report -Draft, February 1996.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, (OSWER
No. 9355.7-03B-P or EPA 540-R-01-007), June 2001.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality, First Five-Year Review Report for Tenth Street Superfund Site, September 2001.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Ground water data, 1997 – 2004.
- 29 -
APPENDIX 3
Site Photographs
- 30 -
Photo 1. Tenth Street Superfund site vegetative cover.
- 31 -
Photo 2. Monitoring well for the Tenth Street Superfund site.
- 32 -
Photo 3. Bent post in the fence on the East side of the Tenth Street Superfund site.
- 33 -
APENDIX 4
Site Inspection Checklist
- 34 -
Site Inspection Checklist
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: Tenth Street Superfund Site Date of inspection: May 16, 2006
Location and Region: Oklahoma City, OK Region 6 EPA ID: OKD980620967
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year
review: Oklahoma DEQ
Weather/temperature: Clear/68 F
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
■ Landfill cover/containment □ Monitored natural attenuation
■ Access controls □ Groundwater containment
■ Institutional controls □ Vertical barrier walls
□ Groundwater pump and treatment
□ Surface water collection and treatment
■ Other Ground water Sampling
Attachments: ■ Inspection team roster attached □ Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
1. O&M site manager ____________________________ ______________________ ____________
Name Title Date
Interviewed □ at site □ at office □ by phone Phone no. ______________
Problems, suggestions; □ Report attached ________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
2. O&M staff ____________________________ ______________________ ____________
Name Title Date
Interviewed □ at site □ at office □ by phone Phone no. ______________
Problems, suggestions; □Report attached _______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
- 35 -
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.
Agency ____________________________
Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; □ Report attached _______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Agency ____________________________
Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; □ Report attached _______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Agency ____________________________
Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; □ Report attached _______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Agency ____________________________
Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; □ Report attached _______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
4. Other interviews (optional) □ Report attached.
- 36 -
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
1. O&M Documents
■ O&M manual ■ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
□ As-built drawings □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
□ Maintenance logs □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan □ Readily available □Up to date □ N/A
□ Contingency plan/emergency response plan □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. O&M and OSHA Training Records □ Readily available □Up to date ■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. Permits and Service Agreements
□ Air discharge permit □Readily available □ Up to date ■ N/A
□ Effluent discharge □ Readily available □ Up to date ■ N/A
□Waste disposal, POTW □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
□ Other permits_____________________ □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5. Gas Generation Records □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
6. Settlement Monument Records ��� Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
7. Groundwater Monitoring Records ■ Readily available ■ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
8. Leachate Extraction Records □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
9. Discharge Compliance Records
□ Air □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
□ Water (effluent) □ Readily available □ Up to date □N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
10. Daily Access/Security Logs □ Readily available □ Up to date □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
IV. O&M COSTS
- 37 -
1. O&M Organization
■ State in-house □ Contractor for State
□ PRP in-house □ Contractor for PRP
□ Federal Facility in-house □ Contractor for Federal Facility
□ Other__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. O&M Cost Records
■ Readily available □ Up to date
□ Funding mechanism/agreement in place
Original O&M cost estimate____________________ □ Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From__________ To__________ __________________ □ Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period
Describe costs and reasons: __________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ■ Applicable □ N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing damaged □ Location shown on site map ■ Gates secured □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and other security measures □ Location shown on site map □ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
- 38 -
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
1. Implementation and enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented □ Yes □ No ■ N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced □ Yes □ No ■ N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) _________________________________________
Frequency ________________________________________________________________________
Responsible party/agency ____________________________________________________________
Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________
Name Title Date Phone no.
Reporting is up-to-date □ Yes G No G N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency □ Yes G No G N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met □ Yes □ No ■N/A
Violations have been reported □Yes □No ■ N/A
Other problems or suggestions: □Report attached
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Adequacy ■ICs are adequate □ ICs are inadequate □N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
D. General
1. Vandalism/trespassing □ Location shown on site map ■No vandalism evident
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Land use changes on site G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Land use changes off site G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads □ Applicable ■N/A
1. Roads damaged □ Location shown on site map ■Roads adequate □N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
- 39 -
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks ______________________________________________________________
_ _________________________________________________________________ _ _
_________ ___________________________________________________________
__ __________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
VII. LANDFILL COVERS ■Applicable □ N/A
A. Landfill Surface
1. Settlement (Low spots) □Location shown on site map □Settlement not evident
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
2. Cracks □ Location shown on site map ■Cracking not evident
Lengths____________ Widths___________ Depths__________
Remarks____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
3. Erosion □ Location shown on site map ■Erosion not evident
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. Holes □Location shown on site map ■ Holes not evident
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5. Vegetative Cover ■ Grass ■ Cover properly established ■No signs of stress
□ Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) ■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
7. Bulges □ Location shown on site map ■ Bulges not evident
Areal extent______________ Height____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
8. Wet Areas/Water Damage ■ Wet areas/water damage not evident
□Wet areas □ Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
□ Ponding □Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
□Seeps □Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
□ Soft subgrade □Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
- 40 -
9. Slope Instability □Slides □ Location shown on site map ■ No evidence of slope instability
Areal extent______________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
B. Benches □ Applicable ■N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope
in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
channel.)
1. Flows Bypass Bench G Location shown on site map ■ N/A or okay
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Bench Breached G Location shown on site map ■N/A or okay
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Bench Overtopped G Location shown on site map ■ N/A or okay
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
C. Letdown Channels G Applicable ■N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1. Settlement G Location shown on site map ■ No evidence of settlement
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Material Degradation G Location shown on site map ■No evidence of degradation
Material type_______________ Areal extent_____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Erosion G Location shown on site map ■ No evidence of erosion
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. Undercutting G Location shown on site map ■No evidence of undercutting
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5. Obstructions Type_____________________ ■ No obstructions
G Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
Size____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type____________________
■ No evidence of excessive growth
G Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
G Location shown on site map Areal extent______________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
- 41 -
D. Cover Penetrations G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Gas Vents G Active G Passive
G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition
G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance
■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Gas Monitoring Probes
G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition
G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance ■N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
■ Properly secured/locked G Functioning ■ Routinely sampled ■ Good condition
G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance G N/A
Remarks___________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
4. Leachate Extraction Wells
G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition
G Evidence of leakage at penetration G Needs Maintenance ■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5. Settlement Monuments G Located G Routinely surveyed ■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
E. Gas Collection and Treatment G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Gas Treatment Facilities
G Flaring G Thermal destruction G Collection for reuse
G Good condition G Needs Maintenance
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
G Good condition G Needs Maintenance
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
G Good condition G Needs Maintenance G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
F. Cover Drainage Layer ■ Applicable G N/A
1. Outlet Pipes Inspected ■ Functioning G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Outlet Rock Inspected ■ Functioning G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds G Applicable ■ N/A
- 42 -
1. Siltation Areal extent______________ Depth____________ ■N/A
G Siltation not evident
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Erosion Areal extent______________ Depth____________
G Erosion not evident
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Outlet Works G Functioning ■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. Dam G Functioning ■N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
H. Retaining Walls G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Deformations G Location shown on site map G Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement____________ Vertical displacement_______________
Rotational displacement____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Degradation G Location shown on site map G Degradation not evident
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Siltation G Location shown on site map G Siltation not evident
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Vegetative Growth G Location shown on site map ■ N/A
G Vegetation does not impede flow
Areal extent______________ Type____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Erosion G Location shown on site map ■ Erosion not evident
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. Discharge Structure G Functioning ■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Settlement G Location shown on site map G Settlement not evident
Areal extent______________ Depth____________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
- 43 -
2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring__________________________
G Performance not monitored
Frequency_______________________________ G Evidence of breaching
Head differential__________________________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
C. Treatment System G Applicable ■ N/A
1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
G Metals removal G Oil/water separation G Bioremediation
G Air stripping G Carbon adsorbers
G Filters_________________________________________________________________________
G Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)_____________________________________________
G Others_________________________________________________________________________
G Good condition G Needs Maintenance
G Sampling ports properly marked and functional
G Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
G Equipment properly identified
G Quantity of groundwater treated annually________________________
G Quantity of surface water treated annually________________________
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
G N/A G Good condition G Needs Maintenance
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
G N/A G Good condition G Proper secondary containment G Needs Maintenance
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
G N/A G Good condition G Needs Maintenance
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
5. Treatment Building(s)
G N/A G Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) G Needs repair
G Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition
G All required wells located G Needs Maintenance G N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
D. Monitoring Data
1. Monitoring Data
■ Is routinely submitted on time ■ Is of acceptable quality
2. Monitoring data suggests:
G Groundwater plume is effectively contained G Contaminant concentrations are declining
D. Monitored Natural Attenuation
- 44 -
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
G Properly secured/locked G Functioning G Routinely sampled G Good condition
G All required wells located G Needs Maintenance ■ N/A
Remarks__________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
X. OTHER REMEDIES
Not Applicable
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy
The remedy is operating as planned. No significant issues noted during the site inspection.
B. Adequacy of O&M
O&M procedures are being implemented in accordance with the plan, and appear to be adequate.
C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
No significant issues noted during the site inspection.
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Because the ground water data shows non detects for the PCBs, plugging of the ground water wells
will be done.
- 45 -
APPENDIX 5
Site Interviews
- 46 -
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Tenth Street Superfund Site EPA ID No.: OKD980620967
Subject: Five-Year Review Time: Date:
Contact Made By:
Name: Dennis L. Datin Title: Engineer Organization: DEQ
Individual Contacted:
Name: Robbie Kienzle
Title: Urban Redevelopment
Specialist
Organization: Office of Economic
Development
OKC Planning Department
Telephone No: (405) 297-1740
Fax No: (405) 297-1631
E-Mail Address: robbie.kienzle@okc.gov
Street Address: 420 W. Main, 9th Floor
City, State, Zip: Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Summary Of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment) Okay
2. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections, reporting
activities, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? If so, please give purpose and
results. Yes, such as possible reuse of the site.
3. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a
response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and results of the responses. No
4. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress? Yes
5. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s
management or operation?
She says it would have been better to have removed the waste from the site and will glad for the deed notice to be
placed on the site.
- 47 -
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Tenth Street Superfund Site EPA ID No.: OKD980620967
Subject: Five-Year Review Time: Date:
Type: ■ Telephone □ Visit □ Other
Location of Visit:
□ Incoming □ Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name: Dennis L. Datin Title: Engineer Organization: DEQ
Individual Contacted:
Name: Gayla Scott
Title: Neighbor Organization:
Telephone No: 405-843-1565 x4
Fax No:
E-Mail Address:
Street Address: 5613 NW 103rd Place
City, State, Zip: Oklahoma City, OK 73162
Summary Of Conversation
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment) Okay
2. What effects have site operations had on the surrounding community? The stigma of the site being a superfund
site and how that effects the selling of the site.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details. No
4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site such as vandalism, trespassing,
or emergency responses from local authorities? If so, please give details.
Some cars in the area have been stolen.
5. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress? Yes
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s management
or operation? She would like for the address of the site not be same as her fathers house which is right next to the
site.
- 48 -
APPENDIX 6
Community Involvement
DEQ Press Release (5/23/2006)
- 49 -
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:26 AM
To: Black Chronicle (E-mail); Capitol Hill Beacon (E-mail); Edmond Sun (E-mail); KFOR TV (E-mail); KKNG/
KTLR/ KTUZ Radio (E-mail); KOCO TV (E-mail); KOKH TV (E-mail); KOMA/KRXO Radio (E-mail); KTOK
AM Radio (E-mail); KWTV TV (E-mail); Norman Transcript (E-mail); OETA TV (E-mail); Oklahoma County
Newspapers (E-mail); Oklahoma Gazette (E-mail); The Journal Record (E-mail)
Subject: DEQ Press Release: 5 year Review for 10th Street Superfund Site
News Release
Picture (Metafile)
707 North Robinson, P.O. Box 1677, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101-1677
For Immediate Release: May 23, 2006
Contact: Monty Elder, (405)702-1017
Five-Year Review for the Tenth Street Superfund Site
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) began conducting a five-year review of the Tenth Street Superfund
Site earlier this month. The purpose of this review is to determine whether the site remedy
remains protective of human health and the environment as well as to document the methods,
findings, and conclusions of the five-year review in a report. The report will be available to the
public in September. This will be the second Five-Year Review for the site. Five Year Reviews
of remedies at Superfund sites are required when waste is left in place; in this case, waste was
consolidated and capped onsite.
The Tenth Street Superfund Site is located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Site was used as a
municipal landfill from 1951 to 1954. The Site was then used as a salvage yard from 1959 to
1979, accepting materials such as tires, solvents, and transformers. Sampling by the EPA in 1984
and 1985 identified elevated polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentrations in the soil. After
reviewing the data, EPA determined that the contaminants posed a potential health threat. In
1985 EPA placed a temporary cover on the contaminated soil to address direct human contact
threats and the potential for offsite migration of contaminants. The Site was proposed for the
National Priorities List (NPL) in January 1987 (52 FR 2492) and placed on the NPL in July 1987
(52 FR 27620).
- 50 -
Following a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD)
on September 27, 1990. The ROD is a legally binding decision document that directs the remedy
for the site. The ROD was amended in 1993 to change the remedy from soil washing to capping.
The objective of the amended remedy was the same as the original ROD, to protect human health
and the environment by preventing current or future exposure to the contaminated soil through
treatment and/or containment, and reducing or controlling the potential migration of
contaminants from the soil to groundwater. The selected remedy was to place the contaminated
soil under a new cap and to monitor the ground water for PCBs.
The remedial action was completed on January 4, 1996. Since that time the State of Oklahoma
has been performing operations and maintenance at the site, which included mowing and
sampling of the ground water.
- 51 -